Jonghyun Bae1,2,3, Jin Zhang2,3, Youssef Zaim Wadghiri2,3, Atul Singh Minhas4, Harish Poptani4, Yulin Ge2,3, Sungheon Gene Kim2,3. 1. Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Science, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 2. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 3. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 4. Centre for Preclinical Imaging, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of measuring the subtle disruption of blood-brain barrier (BBB) using DCE-MRI with a scan duration shorter than 10 min. METHODS: The extended Patlak-model (EPM) was introduced to include the effect of plasma flow (Fp ) in the estimation of vascular permeability-surface area product (PS). Numerical simulation studies were carried out to investigate how the reduction in scan time affects the accuracy in estimating contrast kinetic parameters. DCE-MRI studies of the rat brain were conducted with Fisher rats to confirm the results from the simulation. Intracranial F98 glioblastoma models were used to assess areas with different levels of permeability. In the normal brain tissues, the Patlak model (PM) and EPM were compared, whereas the 2-compartment-exchange-model (TCM) and EPM were assessed in the peri-tumor and the tumor regions. RESULTS: The simulation study results demonstrated that scan time reduction could lead to larger bias in PS estimated by PM (>2000%) than by EPM (<47%), especially when Fp is low. When Fp was high as in the gray matter, the bias in PM-PS (>900%) were larger than that in EPM-PS (<42%). The animal study also showed similar results, where the PM parameters were more sensitive to the scan duration than the EPM parameters. It was also demonstrated that, in the peri-tumor region, the EPM parameters showed less change by scan duration than the TCM parameters. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that EPM can be used to measure PS with a scan duration of 10 min or less.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of measuring the subtle disruption of blood-brain barrier (BBB) using DCE-MRI with a scan duration shorter than 10 min. METHODS: The extended Patlak-model (EPM) was introduced to include the effect of plasma flow (Fp ) in the estimation of vascular permeability-surface area product (PS). Numerical simulation studies were carried out to investigate how the reduction in scan time affects the accuracy in estimating contrast kinetic parameters. DCE-MRI studies of the rat brain were conducted with Fisher rats to confirm the results from the simulation. Intracranial F98 glioblastoma models were used to assess areas with different levels of permeability. In the normal brain tissues, the Patlak model (PM) and EPM were compared, whereas the 2-compartment-exchange-model (TCM) and EPM were assessed in the peri-tumor and the tumor regions. RESULTS: The simulation study results demonstrated that scan time reduction could lead to larger bias in PS estimated by PM (>2000%) than by EPM (<47%), especially when Fp is low. When Fp was high as in the gray matter, the bias in PM-PS (>900%) were larger than that in EPM-PS (<42%). The animal study also showed similar results, where the PM parameters were more sensitive to the scan duration than the EPM parameters. It was also demonstrated that, in the peri-tumor region, the EPM parameters showed less change by scan duration than the TCM parameters. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that EPM can be used to measure PS with a scan duration of 10 min or less.
Authors: Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; Xinjian Du; Dilip K Pandey; Keith R Thulborn; Fady T Charbel Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Sau May Wong; Jacobus F A Jansen; C Eleana Zhang; Julie Staals; Paul A M Hofman; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Cécile R L P N Jeukens; Walter H Backes Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Harm J van de Haar; Saartje Burgmans; Jacobus F A Jansen; Matthias J P van Osch; Mark A van Buchem; Majon Muller; Paul A M Hofman; Frans R J Verhey; Walter H Backes Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Axel Montagne; Samuel R Barnes; Melanie D Sweeney; Matthew R Halliday; Abhay P Sagare; Zhen Zhao; Arthur W Toga; Russell E Jacobs; Collin Y Liu; Lilyana Amezcua; Michael G Harrington; Helena C Chui; Meng Law; Berislav V Zlokovic Journal: Neuron Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Anna K Heye; Ross D Culling; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Michael J Thrippleton; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Henrik B W Larsson; Mark B Vestergaard; Ulrich Lindberg; Helle K Iversen; Stig P Cramer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Katherine J Bangen; Daniel A Nation; Lindsay R Clark; Alexandrea L Harmell; Christina E Wierenga; Sheena I Dev; Lisa Delano-Wood; Zvinka Z Zlatar; David P Salmon; Thomas T Liu; Mark W Bondi Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Maria Eleni Karakatsani; Antonios N Pouliopoulos; Michael Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Elisa E Konofagou Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.756